Dear All
I am responding to Mr. Floriano Lobo's comment that the 'Sexual Harassment case in Goa University case' may have been enacted and pushed forward to save the ragging culprits. Goa University has appointed a committee to investigate the above mentioned sexual harassment case. The committee has been formed on the basis of the Vishaka Judgment (1997) of Supreme Court. The Vishaka judgment (1997) has been one of the most progressive steps taken by our judiciary, to ensure equality. The committee is constituted on the basis of the directives of Supreme Court and is the highest body that should investigate the matter. Please find below some links to articles on this matter. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vaw_legislation_2008/expertpapers/EGMGPLVAW%20Paper%20(Naina%20Kapur).pdf http://nrcw.nic.in/shared/report/69.pdf http://www.combatlaw.org/information.php?article_id=277&issue_id=11 I would therefore like to seek clarifications from him as to what he is suggesting when he has says 'as I happen to know Prof. Aureliano Fernandes very well and I will want this entire thing to be thoroughly investigated, impartially, at the highest level, without any political influence whatsoever and the culprits brought to book irrespective whether it is Aureliano Fernandes, the ragging masters and mistresses and the sexual live bombs parading in the University as students'.I find him suggesting that the committee is biased, incapable of investigating the matter and lacking in authority. Also I think that he is referring to the female students who have complained as 'mistresses' and 'sexual bombs parading as students'. I see these remarks as ploys to character-assassinate the complainants. I see these comments blaming the women in inferior power positions (Ex: students vis-à-vis profs), of false accusations and immoral behavior. I am however ready to believe that I might have misread his contention and therefore I am seeking clarifications from him to, two of my questions. I hope these clarifications will help to sharpen the debate. Question 1: Is he suggesting that the committee is biased and is not the highest body that should investigate this matter? Question 2: What is he trying to suggest, when he contrasts in one line, the accused by his specific name and the complainants with derogatory labels like 'mistresses' and sexual bombs parading as students'. DISCLAIMER: I am not questioning the sincerity of Mr. Lobo's desire for justice just because he happens to know the accused "very well". Just as his opposition to government intervention in the Cida -de - Goa issue was driven by his concern for greater public good; in this case too, I believe, he is motivated by the noble concerns. I do not question his integrity and believe that the sponsoring of his clean Goa-Suraj Party's fund-raising dinner by the owner of Cida-de- Goa had nothing to do with Mr. Lobo's political/a-political stance on that issue. Kind regards Sammit Khandeparkar
